Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Your Camera Does Matter  (Read 190110 times)

jashley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #80 on: March 14, 2008, 02:15:32 pm »

Quote from: Rob C,Mar 14 2008, 01:55 PM
Quote from: jashley,Mar 14 2008, 05:38 PM
Damn, your girlfriend is rich enough to give you the money for a mkIII but she won't do it?  Get rid of her!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181464\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote

Well, that´s an interesting point of view, and better yet, shows how cloudy things can get.

If the girlfriend has the money but won´t do it, get rid of the girl friend; if the girlfriend has no money but does it like a rabbit, keep her.

This is what you meant, isn´t it?

Best solution, of course, is a girlfriend who both has the money and is willing to do it as often as you want her to do it. But trust me, even then there will be those who find fault with your ideal solution, possibly even those who have never met either you or your girlfriend, but most likely those who have no money but never do it anyway.

Funny thing, ffff - photography.

Ciao- Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And then what if your wife started working out and lost 30 pounds and you wanted to start doing it with her again?  That could get really complicated (not to mention exhausting).
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2171
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #81 on: March 14, 2008, 02:39:51 pm »

Michael wasn't actually engaging Rockwell's direct argument (about photographers and cameras), so much as he was attacking Rockwell's stupid cliches. Arguing that it's the photographer, not the camera, is a stupid cliche. Anyone who spends 1/4000 of a second thinking about it, knows that. Actually, Michael's article itself is something of a cliche, in pointing out that Rockwell's piece was a cliche; but Michael's piece was the product of annoyance, and so forgivable, while Rockwell's is just another piece of internet trash written without even the vaguest semblance of original thought.

If somebody argued that it's all the camera, and not the photographer, then it wouldn't be a stupid cliche (although it would be stupid) because nobody ever argues that, although a talentless hack might think it.  

Not to piss anybody off, but the one thing about Michael's article that stuck me as, er, less than truthful, was that he really wasn't that familiar with Rockwell and more-or-less stumbled over him while surfing. Well, excuse me, but you can't have been on the net, reading about photography, for any amount of time, without knowing something about Rockwell, though most of what you hear about the quality of his site is bad.

JC
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #82 on: March 14, 2008, 02:52:10 pm »

Quote
And then what if your wife started working out and lost 30 pounds and you wanted to start doing it with her again?  That could get really complicated (not to mention exhausting).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That´s exactly what I mean about things getting a little complex on the internet: this discussion had absolutely nothing to do with MY wife, but was about somebody else´s girlfriend!

But theoretically, you have a point, only how can you know if the 30 pounds would be better lost than gained? 15 pounds a side can make a hell of a difference: ask Pammy.

Rob C
« Last Edit: March 14, 2008, 02:53:21 pm by Rob C »
Logged

Moynihan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119
    • jay moynihan:  glances stares & nods
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #83 on: March 14, 2008, 03:01:07 pm »

Rockwell has responded on his site (03/14/2008 Whats New) to the LL piece. Response starts of a tad weird, and well, a bit nationalistic.

 

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #84 on: March 14, 2008, 03:12:41 pm »

Ken Rockwell wrote an article of 3400 words, with plenty of quotes and examples, yet all those holier-than-the-Pope crusaders of the new religion (commonly known as equipment junkies) are aiming their diatribes against only four words, the headline of his article: 'Your Camera Doesn't Matter'. And yet, the headline is a text-book example of a hyperbole . Here is Wikipedia's definition:

"...  a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, and is not meant to be taken literally . Hyperbole is used to create emphasis...."

The new equipment religion has some eerie similarities with most religions: prophets, followers, crusaders, intolerance to heretics and infidels... their dogma can not be disputed or doubted:
Quote
Questionning Michael's main point equals questioning logic itself

Amen!

Colorado David

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1178
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #85 on: March 14, 2008, 03:14:37 pm »

The funny thing about a pissing match is that, right or wrong, everybody gets wet.

I think the topic has wandered towards Rockwell, but I don't think the article was a direct response to it.  Sure, there was some frustration with its pedantic theory, but I think Michael's response was really prompted by a post on this site.  I can't speak for him and I'll back out now before I get wet.  

jashley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #86 on: March 14, 2008, 03:33:23 pm »

Quote
Rockwell has responded on his site (03/14/2008 Whats New) to the LL piece. Response starts of a tad weird, and well, a bit nationalistic.

 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181487\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Based on his response I must say I've changed my opinion of Mr. Rockwell.  To try and frame this as some kind of "Americans vs the World" thing is way beyond "posing", it's just kooky.
Logged

RomanJohnston

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #87 on: March 14, 2008, 03:58:16 pm »

BALANCE....its a key in life and most ALL things.

Give an amazing photographer amazing tools and quality light.....and sit back and watch the magic happen.

Vary to any direction and watch the quality fall off a bit...to an aweful lot.

Craftsmen hone their skills...as well as their tools.

Anyone silly enough to not understand that will suffer in their work accordingly and proportionately.

Roman
« Last Edit: March 14, 2008, 03:59:11 pm by RomanJohnston »
Logged

Provokot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
    • http://www.pauldaveycreative.co.uk
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #88 on: March 14, 2008, 04:04:11 pm »

Quote
And then what if your wife started working out and lost 30 pounds and you wanted to start doing it with her again?  That could get really complicated (not to mention exhausting).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Guys, its MY money. She just decides how its spent
Logged

jashley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #89 on: March 14, 2008, 04:38:59 pm »

Quote
Guys, its MY money. She just decides how its spent
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181501\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh God, you poor bastard--just get the ring.  Bet she'll let you spend as much money as you want on that!  
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #90 on: March 14, 2008, 04:39:54 pm »

Quote
Eric, did you really read the article from Ken?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
I see that he says good gear can make life easier. I think that counters your argument here. I am not a Ken Rockwell fan by any means, sure dont agree with a lot of what he says. Neither am I here to say anyone is a bad photographer, its all down to taste. Its just as simple as this. Ken is right on this one, sorry!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I read it, completely. And admitting that "good gear can make life easier" is a far cry from admitting that it can ever, under any circumstances, help you make a better image.

I'll admit that Ken is right in that one statement, and even perhaps in some others in the essay. But his main thesis is that "Your camera does not matter." Is that the same as saying "Your camera may not be as important a contributor to image quality as you think?"
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #91 on: March 14, 2008, 04:44:40 pm »

Quote
If the girlfriend has the money but won´t do it, get rid of the girl friend; if the girlfriend has no money but does it like a rabbit, keep her.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can see Ken Rockwell's next essay forming right now! Will it be "Your girlfriend's money doesn't matter?" or "Doing it like a rabbit doesn't matter?"

Watch his site for the answer.      
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #92 on: March 14, 2008, 04:48:55 pm »

Quote
Yes, I read it, completely. And admitting that "good gear can make life easier" is a far cry from admitting that it can ever, under any circumstances, help you make a better image.

I'll admit that Ken is right in that one statement, and even perhaps in some others in the essay. But his main thesis is that "Your camera does not matter." Is that the same as saying "Your camera may not be as important a contributor to image quality as you think?"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, Eric, in this specific instance, I think it is tantamount to the same thing.

But hey, KLRZ-FM.com is beaming its magic into my ears and all this silly semantic bickering is so, so less important in the general scheme of things than we care to think and... oh, my god, that Cookie and the Cupcakes version of Great Pretender has just ended... some more triplets piano just coming on... let´s be happy!

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #93 on: March 14, 2008, 04:51:08 pm »

Quote
I can see Ken Rockwell's next essay forming right now! Will it be "Your girlfriend's money doesn't matter?" or "Doing it like a rabbit doesn't matter?"

Watch his site for the answer.      
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah, but what will Mike counter with?

EDIT: Oops! Should have read: with what will Michael counter?

Rob C
« Last Edit: March 14, 2008, 04:53:45 pm by Rob C »
Logged

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #94 on: March 14, 2008, 05:01:47 pm »

People are talking about "image quality", no sane person would dispute a MF digital back and top lens is going to mangle a vivitar compact, or make vastly better prints.

It is the "quality of an image" that is the topic.

Let's take one of the most iconic images of the 20th century.. "Che Guevara". You can read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara

Taken by Alberto Korda

Look at that image. That is, today still on T-shirts, baseball caps, painted on walls. It is one of the most memorable images ever seen, its unique, and has lasting impact. I have no idea on what camera it was taken, what lens was used..nor do I really care that much!

Its a unique and fantastic image, and it will be remembered probably in 100 more years, if not longer. Look at some of the american civil war photos, fascinating..again WWII, many memorable pictures, telling a story of what happened.

These are the things we should concern ourselves with..not pixel peeping, lens or res testing. And yeah you could have taken that with a vivitar! And still, nobody would really give a damn! Most people would chop their limbs off to have taken a shot that memorable, is it perfect on a techinical level? Nope..but it just works, and big time.


And yes it was taken on a Leica..but we all know, that matters not one little bit.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2008, 05:17:53 pm by barryfitzgerald »
Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #95 on: March 14, 2008, 05:20:18 pm »

Quote
I have no idea on what camera it was taken, what lens was used..nor do I really care that much![a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181525\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I saw the contacts somewhere

I think it is pushed triX and it is a crop from a landscape frame

Meaning the average DSLR, D80 even on JPG or whatever would produce a finer file

A good argument that Ken might be right...

IMO subject is most important - but I still think my D3 sucks compared to my H1

SMM
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #96 on: March 14, 2008, 06:11:11 pm »

Quote
Ken Rockwell wrote an article of 3400 words, with plenty of quotes and examples, yet all those holier-than-the-Pope crusaders of the new religion (commonly known as equipment junkies) are aiming their diatribes against only four words, the headline of his article: 'Your Camera Doesn't Matter'. And yet, the headline is a text-book example of a hyperbole . Here is Wikipedia's definition:

"...  a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, and is not meant to be taken literally . Hyperbole is used to create emphasis...."

The new equipment religion has some eerie similarities with most religions: prophets, followers, crusaders, intolerance to heretics and infidels... their dogma can not be disputed or doubted:

Amen!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181488\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The quote you extract is only a part of what I wrote, it seems that you are doing yourself what you are accusing Michael of doing.

Why don't you just step back and read Michael's essay as a general comment, triggered by the title of Ken's writting, but with a larger scope?

You don't have to stay stuck in your initial reaction, move on man.

Cheers,
Bernard

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #98 on: March 14, 2008, 06:12:27 pm »

I have to confess, I have invoked St. Ansel on occasion, and even mentioned people being happy with Holgas. But my point was never that equipment doesn't matter. Rather, my complaint with a lot of the equipment discussion lately is that there seems to be (to me at least) an innordinate amount of concentration on digital "Image Quality," at the expense of other equipment considerations, which do matter a great deal.

There have been a lot of lengthy posts lately about one camera having detectably better noise characteristics than another at ISO X,000, as viewed at 800% magnification on a monitor. I think noise is important, but it's only one piece of the decision. Most newish DSLRs (in my opinion) are good enough now that it shouldn't be the biggest prioirty in the decision, unless you shoot at the highest ISOs all the time.

Posters ask about which of two cameras might be "better," and before long, we're back to arguing about high magnification views of high ISO noise, and whether the noise in one or the other is more "natural looking." As if that's the only important aspect of camera performance. MR is well-known for being concerned about how a given camera model handles while wearing gloves. Surely, those types of issues should be considered as well, yet the net discussions come back to IQ again and again.

I'm interested that this latest generation of Nikons seems to have made a great improvement in high ISO performance, but I could never justify switching my entire camera system for that gain alone. If I had no SLR system now, it would be relevent, but even then, only one thing to consider. So tell me about all the rest of the factors. That's the value of LL to me. I'll watch how MR gets on with his Nikon rig, surely. But it annoys me to see people saying that the 4/3s cameras can't be considered useful for high quality work, now that Canon and Nikon have cameras with much larger sensors, etc., etc. (And no, I don't own any 4/3s equipment, so don't accuse me of the wretched affliction of fanboyism).

Frankly, when I'm looking at buying a camera, I don't need anyone to tell me too much about IQ anyway. I can just go to something like DPreview, download the samples, and judge for myself. (On occasion, I've taken a a blank CF card into a store and used it to take several shots at each ISO, with every camera that interests me.) What I'd really like to know from reviewers are things that I can't see on a web site, or by looking at images. Things like how does the camera handle in bad weather? Does it have annoying menu structure? Are there flimsy parts that fail early? My equipment satisfaction doesn't always match what I expected from the reviews. I think that comes from reading reviewers who concentrated on qualities I don't consider important in the real world.

In summary, I'd say the equipment is very important. What is not important are endless declarations about why some new camera model should be entirely avoided, because a competitor has just announced a newer model with 4% more pixels, or infinitesimally improved noise structure at extremely high ISO. I've been let down by things like poor acccess to mirror lock up much more often than I have by the fact that another camera might have less noise at an ISO I don't use.

Still, St. Ansel would probably do a lot a better with my equipment than I do...
Logged

Howdy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #99 on: March 14, 2008, 06:14:27 pm »

Ignoring the numerous instances of faulty logic in KR's article, where I take particular  exception is his reliance upon insults.  Either a camera-owner is a good photographer (recognizes and is able to take a good photo with any equipment) or the camera-owner is "clueless," a "turkey," even if you are "otherwise intelligent."

Unfortunately, the essay typifies a 'bully' attitude often seen on the internet that stereotypes others, responds and belittles based upon the stereotype, and usually offers faulty logic and meaningless (and, often irrelevant) aphorisms.

Bravo to Michael for his rebuttal that such a bullying attitude, particularly one based upon faulty logic, has no place in discussions on equipment.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12   Go Up